In a
past post (see, "Why Not Battleships?") we reviewed the arguments against a modern battleship and were unable
to find a compelling reason not to build them.
However, that does not necessarily mean that there are any compelling reasons
to build them. Let’s see if
there are. Here are some of the arguments for
a battleship.
Presence – One of the Navy’s major
justifications for its very existence is presence/deterrence. Personally, I find that rationale to be
completely unfounded and historically dubious but that’s a separate topic. The Navy feels presence is a major
justification and nothing says presence like a battleship. Even critics would have to agree with this –
they may not agree that it’s worth it but they can’t deny the sheer imposing
presence of a battleship. There is no
better naval presence or deterrence than a battleship.
So,
presence would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
Firepower – As we noted in the previous post, a
battleship has more firepower, more sustained firepower, and more responsive
firepower than a carrier – and the battleship’s firepower can’t be jammed,
decoyed, shot down, or have a pilot captured.
Within
its inherent range limitation, the firepower of the battleship, therefore,
offers a viable alternative to a carrier group which frees up the carrier for
its primary mission of air superiority and escort of Tomahawk shooters.
A
battleship utterly dominates anything it can reach.
So,
firepower would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
Flexibility – As noted in the preceding
discussion of firepower, a battleship offers the ability to conduct significant
strikes without requiring a carrier.
This flexibility would be operationally advantageous given the limited
number of carriers in the fleet.
Further,
the ability of a battleship to operate as the centerpiece of a powerful surface
group gives the navy the flexibility to operate more surface groups than just
the few carrier groups that are currently possible.
So,
flexibility would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
Amphibious Assault – We’ve noted that
the Navy/Marine amphibious assault doctrine completely negates any possibility
of gun support. Given the Marine’s
already light combat structure, the absence of naval gun support effectively
renders the entire concept of amphibious assault null and void. The existence of battleship gun support
completely changes that picture and makes amphibious assault conceptually
possible again. The ability to stand
relatively near shore and provide gun support with near-immunity to land based
rockets, artillery, and anti-ship missiles (via the small size of mobile
anti-ship missiles and the presence of the Aegis umbrella) is a huge advantage
in an assault.
So, amphibious
assault would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
Pressure – The Navy’s distributed lethality
concept is predicated on the ability to apply much greater operational and
tactical pressure on the enemy by forcing them to account for more
threats. Again, ComNavOps believes this
is bilgewater but the Navy believes it.
That being the case, a battleship, alone (stupid) or in a group, would
be the epitome of creating additional pressure on the enemy’s operational and
tactical situation. Unlike, say, an LCS
with a few anti-ship missiles (if that comes to be), a battleship would be a
major threat to both the enemy’s surface and land assets. The enemy would have to devote significant
resources to defending against a battleship group.
So,
pressure would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
Range – The Iowa class battleships had a range of
15,000 nm at 15 kts, according to Wiki.
Short of nuclear propulsion, this is about as good as it gets. This type of range is particularly applicable
to the Pacific/China theatre and stands out in stark contrast to the LCS which
has proven to be a disaster in its deployments to the Pacific. Given the Navy’s limited bases and limited at-sea
replenishment and refueling ships, a powerful ship with great range is
mandatory.
So,
range would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.
We
noted no compelling reasons not to build modern battleships and now we note
several reasons to build them. Operational
and tactical flexibility combined with immense firepower are the main reasons
for building modern battleships. The
increase in lethality and options that a battleship provides would be a
tremendous advantage for any fleet. The
logic seems clear – battleships are a good idea and a modern battleship is long
overdue.
I think that presence is effective with regard to politicians, especially if the public is aware that foreign "battleships" (because in the press if it is not a carrier or submarine it is a battleship) are lurking off the coast.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that perhaps presence does not count with militarily minded or aware people, with public affected politicians it does.(I will get it out in the end).
Personally, I think presence and deterrence is useless. There are no historical examples that I can think of where a war was prevented due to presence/deterrence. To be fair, that's trying to prove a negative which is not really possible. Unless some country/leader were to document in a biography that he was going to start a war but stopped due to some presence, we'd never know.
DeleteOne could make an argument that the entire Cold War was a successful exercise in deterrence but, on the other hand, there is no evidence that the Soviet Union ever seriously contemplated a war against the West. If there was no intent then we couldn't have deterred anything! Again, pretty much impossible to prove.
"I think presence and deterrence is useless. There are no historical examples that I can think of where a war was prevented due to presence/deterrence."
DeleteI think if skillfully used it can, as in:
Operation Journeyman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Journeyman
However, the "opposition" needs to know you are:
A. Serious / fully committed.
B. Have the ability/ resource to carry out an escalation.
As a foot note the 1982 invasion happened because our government announced it was withdrawing both the local patrol ship and our amphibious capacity to re-take them. i.e. the deterrence. Had they waited a year they would probably been successful.
It's frequently said that the withdrawal of the south Atlantic guard ship encouraged Argentina to seize the Falklands, but personally I dont think that holds much weight.
DeleteOn a very minor level, perhaps, an Elbonian frigate with a 20mm pop gun is unlikely to harras a US cargo vessel if there's a US battleship a mile away, but equally, they aren't going to capture it and torture the crew to death on tv just because the battleship is 1000 miles away.
For anything egrarious, fleets will steam.
It’s hard to think of a modern battleship being more than expensive way to fill a niche role. In terms of anti-surface warfare, battleships were obsolete in the 1940s and it’s hard to see what has changed that would make them not obsolete now. Not only have planes improved since then, but missiles are now a thing that any ship has to contend with. A large, armoured ship packed with VLS cells, a sort of modern western Kirov, would be much more useful at fighting enemy ships due to the vastly superior range of its weapons, and that’s not even considering the even bigger range advantage that a carrier has. One can say that this modern battleship would be a hybrid, featuring both guns and missiles, but as VLS cells are far more useful and relevant than big guns, that hybrid would lean more heavily towards missiles than artillery (unlike the Iowas with a few Harpoons strapped to them).
ReplyDeleteFor amphibious operations they make a bit more sense, but it is difficult to imagine a situation in which our forces have to storm a beach in a high threat environment that is well-defended enough that has to be stormed, has enough air defenses to make aviation unable to perform the support role, yet doesn’t have any sort of anti-ship weaponry. Any enemy potent enough to swat our planes out of the sky can also probably hit our ships with land-based missiles and mission-kill them. So a BB would likely be used against not against peer or near-peer rivals but against vastly inferior foes - in which case, their job could be achieved by aviation. A battleship might be more cost-effective in this specific role, but carrier and land-based aircraft can perform a far greater variety of roles. Would it really be worth it to have an expensive capital ship for the sole purpose of blowing up poorly-armed militia who happen to be close enough to the shore for the ship’s guns to reach?
Battleships don’t really work well when it comes to the presence factor either (though I agree with you that “presence” is a faulty rationale) against all but the most limited of enemies, because it is simply much easier to hit a ship the closer to shore it is, and battleships have to be close to shore to do their thing.
Battleships were made irrelevant in their intended role as capital ships by the 40s because they were simply outranged. The only thing that has changed since then is that the range of weapons that aren’t guns has increased at a much higher rate than the range of weapons that are guns. I can see some utility in a well-armoured ship that possesses perhaps a single turret with multiple large-caliber guns in addition to an array of missiles, so if this counts as a “battleship” then I suppose it makes sense. This ship really wouldn’t be much akin to the battleships of the past, which were the prime surface combatants of their heyday.
There are numerous posts on here regarding battleships, you should read them, but suffice to say, there have been precious few beyond visual range attacks.
DeleteAcquiring a target hundreds of miles away simply isn't realistic much of the time.
If you mean that there haven't been many BVR attacks on US ships, sure. The USN has engaged in many BVR engagements. We haven't been on the receiving end of as many because we haven't fought a peer rival at sea since WWII.
DeleteDuring WWII, which attacking forces were more deadly, Japan's battleships or Japan's carriers? It's pretty obvious that it was the carriers. WWII carriers managed to locate enemies at ranges well beyond visual range with vastly more primitive aircraft than what is in use today.
"Any enemy potent enough to swat our planes out of the sky can also probably hit our ships with land-based missiles and mission-kill them."
DeleteDo you understand that battleships don't operate alone? Therefore, a battleship will be protected by Aegis ships. The occasional anti-ship missile that can get through the layers of aircraft, Aegis, and the BB's own self-defense will cause little damage to a battleship.
Now, if you believe that Aegis is utterly useless and a complete failure then you have the beginnings of a valid argument but, at that point, the entire existence of the Navy has to come into question.
" In terms of anti-surface warfare, battleships were obsolete in the 1940s"
There is no more powerful anti-surface weapon than a BB's guns. Range is the only issue and if stealth and ship AAW defenses are anywhere near as effective as claimed,
many (most?) surface engagements will devolve into close range gun duels.
"which attacking forces were more deadly, Japan's battleships or Japan's carriers? It's pretty obvious that it was the carriers."
DeleteThe carrier (meaning aviation) has supplanted the battleship as the long range anti-surface strike weapon. To attempt to use that as the justification for ruling out battleships is faulty logic. Or, to extend that faulty logic, I assume you also believe we should eliminate every ship that isn't a carrier since none of them, subs included, have the strike range of a carrier's air wing?
Just as a AAW Burke is justified because of the other things it does, so too is a battleship justified because of all the things it can do, some of them better than a carrier.
All of your arguments have dealt with and eliminated in the previous battleship post. You're offering nothing new.
" haven't been many BVR attacks"
DeleteThere is little historical data on surface BVR combat in the missile age. However, there is a great deal of aviation BVR combat data and what it overwhelmingly demonstrates is that BVR combat is rarely engaged in despite having the capability. The US insists (rightly or wrongly!) on visual ID to prevent friendly fire and that's not BVR! The difficulty in establishing OTH targeting and then positive ID on top of that is quite a challenge. Of course, our enemies may be less inclined to worry about positive ID. That remains to be seen. The point is that BVR engagements are, historically, not that common and there is no reason to believe they will be any more so in the future.
Desert Storm is a good example of possessing BVR aerial capability and yet being afraid to use it for fear of friendly fire, regardless of how remote that possibility was.
The Vincennes incident was an example of the challenges of BVR combat and friendly (or neutral) fire.
And so on.
"Do you understand that battleships don't operate alone? Therefore, a battleship will be protected by Aegis ships."
DeleteYou could stick a cruise ship in the middle of a fleet and protect it, that doesn't mean that you should. Battleships can be protected by fleets, but if they don't add anything significantly useful to that fleet, the money should be spent elsewhere.
"There is no more powerful anti-surface weapon than a BB's guns"
Sure. If your enemy does you the benefit of getting up close.
I guess I just don't understand why any sort of rival would be engaging our ships at close range, or why we would be waiting for them to get into gun range before engaging them. Fleets in the Pacific Ocean managed to find each other with propeller planes back in the 40s. Has our technology decreased since then?
Yamato and Musashi were supremely powerful anti-surface assets when put to see, it didn't do them much good against aircraft.
"many (most?) surface engagements will devolve into close range gun duels."
A purely unsubstantiated claim, that seems to be based on wishful thinking. Battleships sound great only if you convince yourself that this is true, and this is an idea that relies either on navies somehow losing the ability to find other ships without the use of binoculars - an ability we had in 1940 - or if one has utter faith in the Aegis system and its equivalents to defeat any incoming threats as the ships close range with the enemy.
"I assume you also believe we should eliminate every ship that isn't a carrier"
No, because other ships offer something significantly useful to the fleet. I didn't go through a breakdown of the usefulness of destroyers, frigates, submarines, etc because that really isn't the topic at hand here, and I assume everyone knows what those ships do.
The topic is the battleship. Battleships are expensive capital ships that would really only do one single thing better than ship types currently in service - shore bombardment. Quite frankly, this is not as important of a mission as what is done by destroyers, frigates, and submarines. I can see value in a niche shore bombardment ship, but turning it into a giant surface asset just because one wants to imitate a ship type that was surpassed decades ago is a waste of resources that could be better put to use on more pressing issues faced by the Navy.
You seem to lack an understanding of both modern naval combat and what a modern battleship would consist of. I've already explained the likelihood that modern naval combat will devolve into a close range gun battle and that is based on an assessment of historical missile effectiveness data (see Hughes for basic data). The inescapable conclusion is that both sides will expend their missiles with relatively little to show for it, leaving a close range gun fight.
DeleteMoving on, a modern battleship would have 16" guns, Tomahawk missiles, and anti-ship missiles. See the Fleet Structure page for details. There would be no more powerful land, deep strike, and anti-surface vessel afloat. The ability to utterly destroy any land structure is an immense advantage. Couple that with a huge degree of damage resistance and you have an immensely valuable ship.
You also seem to
""many (most?) surface engagements will devolve into close range gun duels."
Delete"A purely unsubstantiated claim, that seems to be based on wishful thinking. "
INS Eilat
Ambushed during peace time and destroyed by missiles, even in this situation, 1 of the 4 missiles missed
The battle of Latakia,
10 missile boats fired mostly ineffective missile barrages at each other, ended in a gun dual
Battle of Baltim
10 missile boats engaged, missiles fired at long range were ineffective, scored some hits at mid range, devolved in to a gunnery duel.
INS Khukri destroyed by torpedo fired from within a miles.
Belgrano, destroyed by three torpedo fired WVR
Sheffield, lacking ECM, proper radar, CIWS and a sense of the seriousness, was hit and killed by a missile launched with 40miles, 1 hit and 1 miss.
Ardent, lost to unguided bombs
Antelope, lost to unguided bombs
Atlantic Conveyor, cargo ship hit by two missiles, unsure of range.
Coventry, lost to unguided bombs,
I'm sure if you looked you could find the number of WVR and BVR weapons employed in the Gulf Wars, or Yugoslavia, or Libya
With regards to the above comments by J Targaryen, I don't know that anti surface is as obsolete as you say. The Oto Melara vulcano ammo for a 5inch gun has a range of 80-90km, according to their website. Since the shell of a 16 inch gun is significantly larger, thus with more propellant, the range should be, 300-500km. In addition, shells now have guidance, so less will be wasted.
ReplyDeleteIt will also affect ship to ship battles. If you watch any serious video online, or discussions here, ship to ship warfare will still take place within visual range, or at least within 100km of each other. Each ship will launch their ASM's, and counter with AAM's. We don't truly know the results of this, but I think in some scenarios, the ships will close on each other.
When all missiles are expended, that only leaves guns. 5 inch guns can inflict some damage, but sinking a warship isn't easy. Massive holes occur with missiles, or cargo ship collisions, not 5 inch shells, at least not from historical data.
Imagine a battleship 300miles offshore Hong Kong. It can hit HK, Shenzhen, Macau, and anywhere within 150miles of HK. That area is like Silicon valley, with high concentration of high tech factories and highly skilled people. It's quite scary. You don't need $1 million tomahawks, and you can fire hundreds and hundreds more.
And imagine if they designed one from the ground up, but with exisiting tech. We know stealth works, the Zumwalt is not that far off a battleship in length, and no article I've read disputes it's stealth. Now Arleigh Burkes have crap stealth, but if a group of future frigates sailed with 2-3 stealthed battlehsips, that's a scary taskforce to have 300 miles offshore.
This is just my armchair opinion. Don't flame me too much!
Andrew.
Range for conventional shells doesn't really scale up like that. Currently we're working on railguns in order to get 100 mile plus range. If we make a railgun that can hit targets at your proposed distances then I'd definitely reconsider my stance, though I still doubt that the resulting ship would be functionally similar to a battleship, it might be called a "battleship" due to possessing large guns.
DeleteIncreasing range comes only at the cost of decreasing explosiveness/effectiveness. I'm not at all in favor of sub-caliber rounds. It negates the entire reason for a battleship gun!
DeleteThe vast majority of worthwhile military targets around the world are within 20 miles of the shore. Those that aren't can be prosecuted with aircraft, missiles, etc.
It is noteworthy that the NVietnamese prerequisite for peace talks was the withdrawal of the battleships, not the carriers.
Extended range ammunition would enable a battleship to weaken an enemy's defenses before getting closer to finish the job or attack other targets. The blast effects could be enhanced with multiple rounds impacting simultaneously, something ground artillery does rather well. And, multiple guns would make that a simple task.
Delete"Extended range ammunition would enable a battleship to weaken an enemy's defenses"
DeleteIt would also reduce the battleship's magazine of full size 16" rounds. Battleships carried a bit over 100 rds per gun.
If we want to apply smaller shells we can build a cruiser.
One thing battleship critics seem to get wrong is the obsession with the “short range” of the guns va missilery. Those long ranges depends on a lot of factors. Sensors are no way as effective in combat as in flat simulations. Not just the ECM, but atmospheric conditions, over the horizon datalinks, undependable equipment, improper operation, data misinterpreted, and even old fashioned terrain (not even Spy-1 can see thru an island) all can work together to stymie a long range attack.
ReplyDeleteGuns using modern optics and math that can be done on graphing calculator are very consistent and dependable. And we would be talking modern powders and CNC precision barrels more accurate than 1930’s tech which stretches the effectiveness a few more miles. Same for the ammo. A 16 inch could fire a sabot round that is equivalent to an 8” naval shell (still larger than anything currently at) increasing the range another 5 or 10. A rocket assisted round out 50 with a still decent payload is also possible.
And of course if we use the Reagan era battleships as an example, they would have tomahawks as well.
How to defeat an incoming 16-in round is an interesting problem. The shell is not thin-skinned like a missile or airplane. So, a proximity explosion from a missile isn't likely to penetrate the shell. Given its size and construction, this seems to be a C-RAM problem magnified tenfold.
ReplyDeleteHit-to-kill seems to be the way to go and I see two options. One, a CWIS-like weapon should work, though specialized (e.g., armor piercing) ammo might be needed. Second, a hit-to-kill missile with a larger warhead that could penetrate the shell ought to work too.
If the round can't be terminated in mid-air, defeating the explosive charge or triggering mechanism would prevent it from going "BOOM" when it hits the ground. There would be damage from shell splinters upon impact, but that's better than a 20 foot hole in the ground.
The fundamental issue with countering artillery is the per-shot cost of the interceptor and the probability of hit. It's often acceptable to counter massive nuclear missiles or smaller, long range anti-ship missiles with a conplex hit-to-kill interceptor missile, but these interceptors can't possibly be massed in enough quantity to meaningfully negate the massive magazine of a BB. Ballistic C-RAM has a shot at good economy and the ability to store meaningful magazines, but is still really questionable under sustained bombardment.
DeleteI have my criticisms of the BB, but I can't argue that it holds everything wigging the horizon at extreme risk for a great per-shot cost.
If you have guided projectiles, surely that means that there's a chance decoys etc will start to be effective? Also cost needs to be factored in as that's what killed the Zumwalts. Does that mean that a 16" WW2 'dumb' shell is more viable that a modern equivalent? By all means update the fire control and armor it etc but the 'on-board' smartness makes it cost-ineffective. If it's not smart, how accurate would you be at longer rocket-assisted ranges?
ReplyDeleteWould you also need 3 triple 16" turrets? Presumably we could get at least semi-automatic loading and a higher rate of fire now? Maybe a smaller target with 2 twin turrets, smaller ship, smaller crew or thicker armour, more sub-division, more CIWS, more VLS? Perhaps even a fast monitor?
A guided 16" projectile is pointless. The explosive area of a 16" shell (or a salvo of shells!) is sufficient to compensate for any inaccuracies!
DeleteTriple turrets are needed for the sheer overwhelming destructiveness from a single salvo. This is the ultimate in area bombardment. Also, the undoubted low number of battleships would mandate as many guns as possible.
On that basis, why not 3 quadruple turrets? Or 5 twins, or 20" guns? Is there still a good technical reason for 9*16" or is that just sentimentality?
DeleteTriple 16" guns is just because we've done it and we know we can do it - minimize the risk and cost associated with developing a brand new gun type. I would suspect that we have actual construction drawings and metallurgical instructions.
DeleteThere have been numerous advances in explosives since WWII. It may be possible to achieve similar effects with a smaller caliber round.
DeleteI think you'd have to at least partially automate the guns to increase rate of fire and reduce crew size and cost. It's a lot more difficult to automate a triple turret so I think twins would be more practical.
Delete"There have been numerous advances in explosives since WWII. It may be possible to achieve similar effects with a smaller caliber round."
DeleteOr, even greater effects with a 16" round!
" It's a lot more difficult to automate a triple turret so I think twins would be more practical."
DeleteWe had no problem automating the Des Moines class triple 8" guns and achieving a rate of fire of 10 rds/min. I see no reason why we couldn't automate a triple 16" mount.
" increase rate of fire"
DeleteFor large caliber guns, rate of fire is not that much of an issue. For fixed targets, rate of fire is almost meaningless - the target isn't going anywhere. For mobile targets, a single salvo is usually sufficient. Rate of fire is somewhat more useful in a surface engagement, definitely, but those will not be common and a single hit is a sink against any modern warship.
Colorado class battleships had eight 16inch/45 guns mounted in 4 2-gun turrets. That arrangement was a simple progression from the Tennessee class's twelve 14inch guns mounted in 4 3-gun turrets. The 16inch gun arrangement we are familiar with started on the North Carolina class which was designed under the restraints of the naval treaties: how can we pack in enough big guns while staying within the size and weight limits? There are a lot of variables that go into determining what the best gun arrangement would be.
DeleteNah here is the thing. Where ever you see those gun turrets you see below them the citadel. So less turrets smaller more protected cit and less mass to armor in that area.
DeleteOne thing we can use with the 16in guns is 3 different types of shells. AR, HE, and maybe cluster. Given the size of the shells a single salvo from one turret would wipe out a couple football fields easy.
Perhaps look at HMS Rodney or Nelson. Or alternatively A & B being 4 X 16" each and C being a tonne of tomahawk capable VLS.
DeleteSpeed requirements? 20 knots is fine for operating within amphib groups, but if it is expected to run with a carrier group, it will need to do 30+ knots. While a 10 knot difference may not sound like much, it would require about double the propulsion power which greatly increases amount of internal space dedicated to propulsion machinery. Hull design also becomes more critical at higher speeds.
ReplyDeleteI think guidance is important.
ReplyDelete1) for ship to ship battles.
2) for hitting specific buildings- why waste 9 shells over a 200m wide area, when they can be concentrated within a 50m wide area.
3) reduce civilian deaths/injuries, and damage of civilian buildings.
4) A single volley can hit targets over a wider area.
5) Guidance might allow a greater range.
An drew
There is a huge, monumental, colossal (you the idea) difference between important and mandatory. No one will argue that guidance is great to have. The argument comes when the guidance costs too much for the capability AND LIKELIHOOD.
DeleteGuidance costs money. It's that simple. Guidance, generally, costs a LOT of money - not just in the guidance mechanics and electronics of the shell itself but in the required spotting, delivery platform modifications, etc. Consider our most recent lesson of the Zumwalt guided munition which had reached around $1M per round when it was cancelled. Consider the advanced anti-ship LRASM which is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars on up to millions (admittedly, a missile rather than a shell). Consider the cancelled ERGM. And so on.
How likely is a ship to ship battle? Even I don't think it's likely to happen very often. Is it worth the cost for something that has a low probability of occurrence?
"hitting specific buildings-why waste 9 shells"
You're betraying that all too common lack of awareness of what real war is. In a real, peer war, no one is going to care about a single building. Dropping a salvo of CHEAP unguided shells is a far more cost effective solution to destroying a single building than attempting to use expensive guided projectiles. Salvo and move on is what real war does.
Collateral damage? No one cares in a real war. Salvo and move on.
Guidance does not, itself, allow greater range.
If guidance were free, sure, let's have it. Given that guidance costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's not necessary for the BB's guns to be effective. As I said before, the destructive power of 16" salvos makes up for A LOT of guidance and does so in an extremely cost effective manner.
Refresh your memory of descriptions of WWII and how they approached targeting. Salvo and move on.
Sniper in the building? We could attempt to send a drone to reconnoiter, take time scanning, send a sniper team with our newest $1 billion dollar AI-enhanced bullet and kill just that one sniper or we could drop a 16" shell on the building and move on without even stopping. There's only one choice in a real war.
"The ability to stand relatively near shore and provide gun support with near-immunity to land based rockets, artillery, and anti-ship missiles (via the small size of mobile anti-ship missiles and the presence of the Aegis umbrella) is a huge advantage in an assault."
ReplyDeleteNot to overstate the threat, but there are some coastal antiship missiles to be concerned with, the supersonic Russian K-300P mobile anti-ship missile with its 500 lbs warhead being one of them. And, many nations have large caliber (200-mm plus) rocket artillery with ranges that far exceed that of the main guns of a battleship. A battleship could well come under attack long before it is in a position to return fire.
Granted, we would have local control of the air and sea from the Aegis cruisers and destroyers, which, as you wrote, would be an advantage. But, her escorts would have to operate closer to shore than they normally would in order to protect the battleship. While a battleship might have near-imunity from attack, what about her thinner skinned escorts? If enough of her escorts are damaged, the battleship would be forced to retreat.
"A battleship could well come under attack long before it is in a position to return fire."
DeleteYou understand that there is risk in combat, right? You also understand that we fight jointly with many assets, right? If there are artillery batteries or anti-ship launcher systems in the area then we'll search them out and destroy them with aviation assets, cruise missiles, bombers, etc. long before the battleship reaches their range. And, if the enemy can successfully hide some of their weapons and wait for the battleship, then they'll get some shots off and we'll depend on Aegis, ESSM, SeaRAM, CIWS, decoys, ECM, etc. to protect us. If all that fails then we may take a hit. If so, there's no ship better protected against a hit then a battleship.
If the Aegis escorts that were designed to defeat enormous saturation attacks from Soviet aerial regiments can't stop a few odd missiles then we have a massive, systemic problem and need to redesign our entire Navy.
Your argument lacks combat reality and logic.
Do you remember the SCUD hunts during Desert Storm? Hundreds of special operation troops and dozens of aircraft spent weeks looking for mobile SCUD launchers in the vast Iraqi desert. And this was done with total control of the air, which allowed us complete freedom to move troops and aircraft as we pleased.
DeleteWe may face that situation again and control of the air isn't a guarantee during an amphibious assault or in other combat situations. If an enemy can force us to divert resources from the main fight, its a win for them.
Two things:
Delete1. What is your point, if any?
2. Do you remember the SCUD hunts????? I ask because you seem to have forgotten that the SCUDs presented a near-zero military threat. They were a political threat. In a high end war, that's almost irrelevant. Also, we didn't divert any resources from the main fight. We had so many extra assets that we could accommodate SCUD hunts with no impact on the main effort. SCUDs were not a win for Iraq, they were a near-meaningless sideshow.
Anon
DeleteIf the US with absolute superiority couldn't find the scuds, how do you think anyone else will fair with a fraction of the Intel capability?
"If the US with absolute superiority couldn't find the scuds, how do you think anyone else will fair with a fraction of the Intel capability?"
DeleteI don't think that was his point. In fact, he was saying the opposite - that even with all our resources we couldn't reliably find the SCUDs. He suggests that proves that a minor effort on an enemy's part may cause a major diversion of assets. He's wrong about that and you can see my comment in reply.
@CNO
Delete""A battleship could well come under attack long before it is in a position to return fire.""
"Do you remember the SCUD hunts during Desert Storm? Hundreds of special operation troops and dozens of aircraft spent weeks looking for mobile SCUD launchers"
"If the US with absolute superiority couldn't find the scuds, how do you think anyone else will fair with a fraction of the Intel capability?"
WhoGivesACrapistan, or China, will almost certainly be able to hide some long range firepower.
But
If the US was, with its fantastic lintel capability, unable to locate Iraqi SCUDS, its a reasonable assumption that potential enemies of the US will be unable to locate US Battleships.
Locating mobile targets cuts both ways
"Locating mobile targets cuts both ways"
DeleteQuite true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think some people are getting how heavy the firepower of a 3 x triple 16 guns are. Why would you want to water it down with high tech gizmos at the expense of raw power?
ReplyDeleteA single Broadside has the explosive yield of roughly 18,000 lbs which is the equivalent of:
* 18 tomahawks or
* 41 Harpoon or BraHamos missiles or
* 257 5" inch shells or
* 1 MOAB bomb (but with more range)
From ONE broadside salvo.
The listed rate of fire is 2 rpm. 1 Hour of firing 1 broadside every 2 minutes would lay down as much explosive as over 500 tomahawks or 30 MOAB bombs.
Oh, and those are armor piercing shells meant to go thru a foot of hardened steel armor then penetrate to the bowels of a warship. And they are traveling at Mach 2.
OR---the warhead of the M270 MLRS cluster munitions warhead weighs around 260 pounds, with so for the 6 missile “grid killer” salvo would weigh less than half that of a 16 inch shell. So a single 16 gun could fire a cluster warhead equal to an entire M277 salvo, and have weight enough left to put in a rocket motor to increase the gun’s range. So theoretically a broadside could lay cluster munitions across a 9 square kilometer area. ONE BROADSIDE.
I found this on Youtube, a tour of the USS Iowa, BB-63. You can tell by just watching the video, that the Iowa was built to both take punishment and dish it out. I can see why you would like to see some of them. Build a half-dozen or so of them, one per carrier group.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW83U4bkC_k
If anything, this will give some younger people a good idea of the power and might of a Battleship.